发展中国家债务危机的回归:主导发展模式的转变还是维持?

IF 3 2区 社会学 Q1 DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Development and Change Pub Date : 2023-10-19 DOI:10.1111/dech.12800
Andrew M. Fischer, Servaas Storm
{"title":"发展中国家债务危机的回归:主导发展模式的转变还是维持?","authors":"Andrew M. Fischer,&nbsp;Servaas Storm","doi":"10.1111/dech.12800","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, much of the global South has been immersed in a debt crisis of a breadth and depth not seen since the early 1980s. The debt distress was apparent before the pandemic and the situation over the last decade is best described as a slow burn, which the pandemic and war in Ukraine ignited in often sudden and dramatic ways. However, what remains a surprising feature of the ongoing situation has been the avoidance so far of a generalized domino effect, unlike previous systemic Southern debt crises. This fact does not diminish the severity of the consequences given that the containment of crisis has been achieved by regular and persistent applications of austerity and adjustment programmes with deleterious impacts on development in poor countries. This article frames the Debate by exploring these aspects of the current Southern debt crisis, focusing on its deeper structural drivers versus the role of more proximate triggers of the crisis; the similarities or differences with past crises of recent decades; and the degree to which anything has in fact changed in orthodox responses to crisis management. A theme that emerges from the more heterodox scholarship profiled by this Debate is that the current crisis and its responses are maintaining the dominant development paradigm of the last 40 years, rather than eliciting a shift away from it. There is a continued adherence to neoliberal ideology in macroeconomic policy making and to the punitive subordination of developing countries in debt distress, through crisis responses, to the Northern and especially US-centred international financial system. Ignoring the very strong similarities to the past, especially the 1982 debt crisis that ushered in this paradigm, risks repeating the lost decades to development that followed.</p>","PeriodicalId":48194,"journal":{"name":"Development and Change","volume":"54 5","pages":"954-993"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/dech.12800","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Return of Debt Crisis in Developing Countries: Shifting or Maintaining Dominant Development Paradigms?\",\"authors\":\"Andrew M. Fischer,&nbsp;Servaas Storm\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/dech.12800\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, much of the global South has been immersed in a debt crisis of a breadth and depth not seen since the early 1980s. The debt distress was apparent before the pandemic and the situation over the last decade is best described as a slow burn, which the pandemic and war in Ukraine ignited in often sudden and dramatic ways. However, what remains a surprising feature of the ongoing situation has been the avoidance so far of a generalized domino effect, unlike previous systemic Southern debt crises. This fact does not diminish the severity of the consequences given that the containment of crisis has been achieved by regular and persistent applications of austerity and adjustment programmes with deleterious impacts on development in poor countries. This article frames the Debate by exploring these aspects of the current Southern debt crisis, focusing on its deeper structural drivers versus the role of more proximate triggers of the crisis; the similarities or differences with past crises of recent decades; and the degree to which anything has in fact changed in orthodox responses to crisis management. A theme that emerges from the more heterodox scholarship profiled by this Debate is that the current crisis and its responses are maintaining the dominant development paradigm of the last 40 years, rather than eliciting a shift away from it. There is a continued adherence to neoliberal ideology in macroeconomic policy making and to the punitive subordination of developing countries in debt distress, through crisis responses, to the Northern and especially US-centred international financial system. Ignoring the very strong similarities to the past, especially the 1982 debt crisis that ushered in this paradigm, risks repeating the lost decades to development that followed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48194,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Development and Change\",\"volume\":\"54 5\",\"pages\":\"954-993\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/dech.12800\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Development and Change\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dech.12800\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Development and Change","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dech.12800","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在2019冠状病毒病大流行之后,全球大部分南方国家陷入了自20世纪80年代初以来最严重和最严重的债务危机。债务危机在大流行病之前就很明显,过去十年的局势最好被描述为缓慢燃烧,而大流行病和乌克兰战争往往以突然和戏剧性的方式点燃了这种燃烧。然而,当前形势的一个令人惊讶的特点是,到目前为止,它避免了普遍的多米诺骨牌效应,这与以往的系统性南方债务危机不同。这一事实并没有减少后果的严重性,因为危机的遏制是通过经常和持续地实施对贫穷国家的发展产生有害影响的紧缩和调整方案实现的。本文通过探讨当前南方债务危机的这些方面来构建辩论的框架,重点关注其更深层次的结构性驱动因素与更接近的危机触发因素的作用;与近几十年来历次危机的异同;以及对危机管理的正统反应中,任何事情实际上发生变化的程度。这场辩论所描绘的更为非正统的学术观点中出现了一个主题,即当前的危机及其应对措施正在维持过去40年的主导发展模式,而不是促使其偏离这种模式。在宏观经济政策制定过程中,新自由主义意识形态持续存在,在危机应对中,处于债务困境的发展中国家惩罚性地从属于北方国家,尤其是以美国为中心的国际金融体系。忽视与过去的非常相似之处,特别是引发这一范式的1982年债务危机,有可能使随后失去的几十年的发展重演。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Return of Debt Crisis in Developing Countries: Shifting or Maintaining Dominant Development Paradigms?

In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, much of the global South has been immersed in a debt crisis of a breadth and depth not seen since the early 1980s. The debt distress was apparent before the pandemic and the situation over the last decade is best described as a slow burn, which the pandemic and war in Ukraine ignited in often sudden and dramatic ways. However, what remains a surprising feature of the ongoing situation has been the avoidance so far of a generalized domino effect, unlike previous systemic Southern debt crises. This fact does not diminish the severity of the consequences given that the containment of crisis has been achieved by regular and persistent applications of austerity and adjustment programmes with deleterious impacts on development in poor countries. This article frames the Debate by exploring these aspects of the current Southern debt crisis, focusing on its deeper structural drivers versus the role of more proximate triggers of the crisis; the similarities or differences with past crises of recent decades; and the degree to which anything has in fact changed in orthodox responses to crisis management. A theme that emerges from the more heterodox scholarship profiled by this Debate is that the current crisis and its responses are maintaining the dominant development paradigm of the last 40 years, rather than eliciting a shift away from it. There is a continued adherence to neoliberal ideology in macroeconomic policy making and to the punitive subordination of developing countries in debt distress, through crisis responses, to the Northern and especially US-centred international financial system. Ignoring the very strong similarities to the past, especially the 1982 debt crisis that ushered in this paradigm, risks repeating the lost decades to development that followed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Development and Change
Development and Change DEVELOPMENT STUDIES-
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
3.30%
发文量
46
期刊介绍: Development and Change is essential reading for anyone interested in development studies and social change. It publishes articles from a wide range of authors, both well-established specialists and young scholars, and is an important resource for: - social science faculties and research institutions - international development agencies and NGOs - graduate teachers and researchers - all those with a serious interest in the dynamics of development, from reflective activists to analytical practitioners
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Issue Information The Political Economy of Reparations and the Dialectic of Transnational Capitalism Mobilized Resilience and Development under Sanctions in Iran A Critical Framing of Data for Development: Historicizing Data Relations and AI
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1